WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump plans to declare a national emergency so he can bypass Congress and build his long-promised wall along the southern border even as he signs a spending bill that does not fund it, the White House said Thursday.
The announcement of his decision came just minutes before the Senate voted 83-16 to advance the spending package. Later Thursday, the House passed the measure 300-128, with Trump's signature planned for today. Trump also will speak today in the Rose Garden about border security, the White House said.
Trump's decision to sign it effectively ends a two-month war of attrition between the president and Congress that closed much of the federal government for 35 days and left it facing a second shutdown as early as today, but it could instigate a new constitutional clash over who controls the federal purse.
"President Trump will sign the government funding bill, and as he has stated before, he will also take other executive action -- including a national emergency -- to ensure we stop the national security and humanitarian crisis at the border," said Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary.
[RELATED: Border wall compromise splits Arkansas delegation 3-3]
Congress' Democratic leaders, Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the House and Charles Schumer in the Senate, quickly branded such a presidential declaration "a lawless act, a gross abuse of the power of the presidency and a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that President Trump broke his core promise to have Mexico pay for his wall."
The spending legislation includes the seven remaining bills to keep the remainder of the government open through the end of September. House and Senate negotiators unveiled the 1,159-page bill Wednesday just before midnight, leaving little time for lawmakers to actually digest its contents.
"The president is once again delivering on his promise to build the wall, protect the border, and secure our great country," Sanders said, as she announced Trump would sign it.
The compromise would provide $1.375 billion for 55 miles of new fences along the border in Texas, far short of the $5.7 billion Trump had sought for 234 miles of steel walls. The final number for border barriers is also less than deals that were on the table last year before Trump pushed the government into a record-long 35-day shutdown in an unsuccessful attempt to get more wall money.
SOUNDS OF SENATE
In opting to declare a national emergency, Trump would seek to access funds for the wall that Congress had not explicitly authorized for the purpose, a provocative move that would test the bounds of presidential authority in a time of divided government. Legal experts have said Trump has a plausible case that he can take such action under current law, but it would almost surely prompt a court challenge from critics arguing that he is usurping two centuries of congressional control over spending.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would support Trump's emergency declaration. That was a turnabout for the Kentucky Republican who, like Democrats and many Republicans, has until now opposed such action.
"I don't think this is a matter that should be declared a national emergency," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. "We as legislators are trying to address the president's priority. What we're voting on now is perhaps an imperfect solution, but it's one we could get consensus on."
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said, "We have a government that has a Constitution that has a division of power, and revenue raising and spending power was given to Congress."
Democratic opponents of a declaration have said there is no crisis at the border and Trump is merely sidestepping Congress, while Republicans have warned that future Democratic presidents could use the move to force spending on their own priorities like gun control.
Meeting with reporters, Pelosi warned that legal action aimed at blocking Trump's emergency declaration was an option, but she stopped short of saying it would definitely occur.
No. 2 House Democratic leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., was more definitive. "House Democrats will challenge this irresponsible declaration," he said in a statement.
A group of Democratic senators -- including Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kamala Harris of California and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York -- collaborated on a measure to prevent Trump from using funds appropriated for disaster relief to pay for border wall construction.
Trump made the wall a signature promise on the 2016 presidential campaign trail, only to be frustrated that he was unable to follow through during his first two years in office, when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.
Negotiations since late December ultimately went nowhere. Pelosi, who led Democrats to power in the House, went beyond simply criticizing the wall as unwise or ineffective by declaring it "immoral," drawing a hard line even though many Democrats have voted for fencing along parts of the border in the past.
At one point during the shutdown, Trump asked Pelosi if she would be willing to support the wall in 30 days if he agreed to reopen the government. When she said no, he got up and walked out of the room, then posted a message on Twitter declaring talks a "waste of time."
PRESIDENT VS. CONGRESS
Trump's emergency declaration could provoke a constitutional clash between the president and Congress. Under Article I of the Constitution, Congress has the power to appropriate funds. "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law," it says.
But Congress has passed laws in the past providing presidents with authority in national emergencies, laws that remain on the books. Scholars pointed to two that could be used by the Trump administration to justify a presidential expenditure for his border wall without explicit legislative approval.
One permits the secretary of the Army to direct troops and other resources to help construct projects "that are essential to the national defense." The other law authorizes the secretary of defense in an emergency to begin military construction projects "not otherwise authorized by law" but needed to support the armed forces.
Democrats or other critics of the president will almost surely file legal challenges to his move, which could ultimately lead to a confrontation at the Supreme Court. The court is led by a five-member conservative majority, but it has shown skepticism of presidential excesses in recent years, reining in both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama when the justices concluded they had overstepped their authority.
The Homeland Security section of the measure allows for 55 miles of new steel-post fencing, but prohibits construction in certain areas along the Rio Grande Valley. More than $560 million is allocated for drug inspection at ports of entry, as well as money for 600 more Customs and Border Protection officers and 75 immigration officers.
It includes a provision, pushed by Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, the only negotiator from a border district, granting communities and towns on the border a period of time to weigh in on the location and design of the fencing. The White House finds that provision objectionable.
The bill also prohibits funds from being used to keep lawmakers from visiting and inspecting Homeland Security detention centers, after a number of highly publicized instances where Democratic lawmakers tried to visit detention centers and were turned away.
Information for this article was contributed by Peter Baker and Emily Cochrane of The New York Times; by Alan Fram, Andrew Taylor, Jill Colvin, Catherine Lucey, Lisa Mascaro, Lolita Baldor and Matthew Daly and Padmananda Rama of The Associated Press; and by Erica Werner, Damian Paletta, Seung Min Kim, Rachael Bade, John Wagner, Mike DeBonis, Sean Sullivan and Paul Kane of The Washington Post.
A Section on 02/15/2019